The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures?
Abstract
The effective dose (E) was created to provide a dose quantity that was related to the probability of health detriment due to stochastic effects from exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. E is derived from the weighted sum of doses to tissues that are known to be sensitive to radiation and so can only be derived by calculation. The tissue weighting factors are derived from the extrapolation of epidemiological evidence. E was intended for use in radiation protection, but has found wide application in evaluation of doses for medical exposures involving only parts of the body. More reliance is often placed on E values and risk estimates based on E than the evidence on which it is based can justify. In this paper, the uncertainties in the estimated values of E for a reference patient and the associated risk coefficients are reviewed in order to provide an indication of how much reliance can be placed on E as an indicator of risk for patients. The relative uncertainty in estimated values of E for medical exposures for a reference patient is seen to be about +/-40%. The estimated risk of cancer may be a factor of three higher or lower when applied to a reference patient, and will be more variable when applied to an individual. A set of recommendations relating to the use of E and description of risk for medical exposures is proposed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preston, D. L., Shimizu, Y., Pierce, D. A., Suyama, A., & Mabuchi, K. (2003) · Radiation Research · doi:10.1667/rr3049 · Cited by 1,172
Cited by
Sodickson, A., Baeyens, P. F., Andriole, K. P., Prevedello, L. M., Nawfel, R. D., Hanson, R., & Khorasani, R. (2009) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2511081296 · Cited by 990
Mettler, F. A., Bhargavan, M., Faulkner, K., Gilley, D. B., Gray, J. E., Ibbott, G. S., Lipoti, J. A., Mahesh, M., McCrohan, J. L., Stabin, M. G., et al. (2009) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2532082010 · Cited by 853
Effective radiation doses of CT examinations in Japan: a nationwide questionnaire-based study
Matsunaga, Y., Kawaguchi, A., Kobayashi, K., Kobayashi, M., Asada, Y., Minami, K., Suzuki, S., & Chida, K. (2016) · The British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr.20150671 · Cited by 29
Aloufi, K. M., Gameraddin, M., Alhazmi, F. H., Almazroui, I. S., Osman, H., & Khandaker, M. U. (2025) · Applied Radiation and Isotopes · doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2024.111583 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Martin, C. J.
- Venue
- The British Journal of Radiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-08
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 956
- Pages
- 639-647
- ISSN
- 0007-1285 (ISSN-L)
- 1748-880X
- OpenAlex
- W2149408623
- Cited by
- 377
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1259/bjr/25922439
- The paper
- Martin, C. J. (2007). Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? The British Journal of Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/25922439
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.